A new report from the UK research team at Price Waterhouse and Cooper confirms what we knew all along: We’re right and they’re wrong.

Really wrong; once-in-a-lifetime, disastrously wrong if grading on the scale the rest of us are subject to.

Grading on the liberal scale, however, it’s just normal, everyday, run of the mill errors in judgment, math, worldview, physics and fluid mechanics that liberals deal with all the time in an effort to “wish” the world to Utopia while their leaders are busy creating Dystopia for all but a select few.

This latest discovery that we are right and they are wrong, shouldn’t shock us.

It joins a long list of things liberals have been pantsed on.

For example: We were right about Obamacare all along. It won’t decrease costs, it won’t cover all Americans and it won’t preserve the private insurance market. And with due respect to Justice John Roberts and the Supremes- do-whop, do-whop- its not even constitutional.

Oh, and that’s not all we were right about.

We were right about the stimulus, we were right about jobs, we were right about Obama being a socialist of the Euro variety; we were right about Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Benghazi.

We were right about Libya being a pretty bad idea; we were right about Dodd-Frank’s suckyness and the mortgage mess being caused by bad liberal policy; we were right about Obama wanting to raise taxes on everyone, taking guns from everyone and having contempt for the constitution.

But on this latest error, I say again: We are really right, and they are really wrong; once-in-a-lifetime, disastrously wrong.

The London branch of Price Waterhouse Cooper has released a report on shale oil and gas that has the Left afraid.

Here’s the frightening truth: “Shale oil (light tight oil) is rapidly emerging as a significant and relatively low cost new unconventional resource in the US,” writes PWC in its February, 2013 report Shale oil: the next energy revolution. “There is potential for shale oil production to spread globally over the next couple of decades. If it does, it would revolutionise global energy markets, providing greater long term energy security at lower cost for many countries.”

And of course the Left can not afford that kind of nonsense. Jobs and economic growth? Where does it all end?

Oh, but it gets worse for the envro-whackos.

PWC estimates that if shale oil is fully developed, US Gross Domestic Product could grow an additional 2-5 percent per year, greatly reduce the influence of OPEC, lower global energy prices, and with NatGas thrown in, add at least a million jobs to manufacturing that are now just going to energy costs.

That means- I’m saying this, not PWC- that we could significantly reduce the deficit, without drastically cutting benefits for a generation of Americans who have planned to count on it. It means- I’m saying this, not PWC- we don’t have to raise taxes. Actually it means we could go to some sort of a simplified tax code, like the fair or flat tax.

And along the way, the U.S. would create at least 10 million new U.S. jobs, keeping around $500 billion per year here at home. Over twenty years that would be an additional $12.5 trillion in GDP even at a modest 2 percent growth rate. At 4 percent the numbers are closer to $15.5 trillion.

PWC estimates the GDP increase to be between 2-5 percent in the US. Using today’s GDP figures that’s between $300 billion and $750 billion, with my estimate being a nice midway point in the PWC estimate.

As I have pointed out all along, the Keystone pipeline issue isn’t about the safety of a pipeline. Obama and enviro-whacko friends know that if they allow Canadian tar sands oil to be developed via the Keystone pipeline, that the US will also start to develop their own tar-sands and shale oil. The US contains well over 600 years of known reserves and that would allow the US to be a net exporter of oil. If that happens, the “green” economy ruse that the left has sponsored, already reeling from bankruptcies and cronyism, would collapse.

It would show that there is no shortage of oil and “green” energy can not compete with fossil fuels.

"Digging up and burning new reserves of fossil fuels can only exacerbate the huge negative impact on the global economy of climate change," said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace, in an emailed statement.

"Any short term price gains for consumers will ultimately be dwarfed by the impact of rising temperatures on every aspect of economic life."

Tony Bosworth, energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth, similarly warned of the environmental problems increasing fracking could cause, adding that governments should instead focus investment on green technologies.

"We've already got more than enough fossil fuels - more than we can afford to burn if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change," he toldBusinessGreen. "The UK has a huge renewable resource and if we want [to meet climate targets] we should be investing in those."

Shale oil (light tight oil) is rapidly emerging as a significant and relatively low cost new unconventional resource in the US,

These wells are neither cheap, nor long lasting. It requires more expensive wells and the wells don't last long a high flow rates. Which means you need more of them; we have to keep drilling just to hold a steady flow rate.

Shale oil (light tight oil) is rapidly emerging as a significant and relatively low cost new unconventional resource in the US,

These wells are neither cheap, nor long lasting. It requires more expensive wells and the wells don't last long a high flow rates. Which means you need more of them; we have to keep drilling just to hold a steady flow rate.

Regular Gas was $3.29.9 a gal earlier yesterday morning at Murphy Gas (Wal Mart) it went up to $3.39.9 a couple of hours later and then a couple of hours later it went up another 10 cents. That is 20 cents in just 4 hours.

6
posted on 02/15/2013 4:09:07 AM PST
by Kaslin
(He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)

We are right. But we still keep giving the bully our lunch-money, so we’re maybe not so clever as we’d like to think.

I’m too lazy to look up the numbers, but I suspect that the massive amount of new (and productive!) jobs created by this fracking boom is the only reason we can’t see that we are deep in a recession. The pitiful job numbers that dear-leader takes credit for would be horrific without this oil-boom, but he blathers-on selling his Global-Warming snake-oil and castigating fossil fuels.

So called (I hate the term) “Obamcare” won’t work, except as a massive and expensive rip-off of the tax-payer. It would be nice if we couldn’t afford it. Fortunately for the dummy-in-chief, we are willing and able to role up our sleaves and do all the work while he sells his schtick about Evil-Oil to the masses. That way, we can pay to lose our freedom over our own healthcare and feed and clothe even more bureaucrats to rule over us.

we could significantly reduce the deficit, without drastically cutting benefits for a generation of Americans who have planned to count on it.

This is what kills me about liberals. They could have most of their GD stinking welfare state if they'd just STOP putting a drag on the economy. But they've got an ideology that isn't just about helping the poor, it's about hurting the rich, and by doing so they hurt everyone. God I hate these religious fools (Marxism is a religion as much as an economic theory).

"These wells are neither cheap, nor long lasting. It requires more expensive wells and the wells don't last long a high flow rates. Which means you need more of them; we have to keep drilling just to hold a steady flow rate."

Well, I think economics would dictate that as demand continues, the cost of such wells would drop, and we would have a lot more wells producing even at the lower rates.

The article is talking about oil shale deposits and other tight formations. These tight formations are not economically to produce without hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic Fracturing and production from these wells are directly tied.

Deep Water is great, AFTER you’ve paid the zillion dollars to get it up and going. And oh, then AFTER a hurricane shuts you down. And oh, then after that same hurricane does a half zillion dollars worth of damage to the rig. And oh, then AFTER Obama runs you out of business. Yeah, deep water is practically a give away.

I”m claiming you are using a static analysis for an industry that is dynamic and not static. You are also using historical data for a business that is forward looking. Looking forward, with reasonable assumptions about technologies and restrictions and so on, not to mention deposits, and increased efficiencies of scale, it is not a fraud to call this technology “relatively low cost.”

Dirty little secret is that Democrat State and Local Politicians in PA, OH and other politically sensitive areas have already spent the money from this new revenue stream for the next decade on out. Obama risks a full-blown intraparty Civil War if he tries to screw with this.

thackney backed up his comment with the data he posted @ #13, a chart he’s previously posted or at least one similar to it. I’d seen it before and understood the context of his comment on the article trying to make horizontal drilling and fracking seem less expensive than it is when compared to the steep decline curve on flow rates.

30
posted on 02/15/2013 10:45:59 AM PST
by T-Bird45
(It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)

If it does, it would revolutionise global energy markets, providing greater long term energy security at lower cost for many countries.

The shale fields using hydraulic fracture are NOT going to lead a significant and lasting decrease in price. If the supply out runs the demand pushing the price low, we will see the same result we have already seen in the Gas Drilling in the US.

The investors will quit spending so much to drill and complete these expensive wells when the payout falls dramatically, just like we have already seen in the gas drilling. And given the quick fall off in the production curves, it will not take long to see the supply to fall and cycle the boom/bust again.

For those not aware of the steep fall in drilling rigs going after gas in the last couple years:

Since you plucked that chart out of a presentation that is very positive about Bakken drilling, don’t you feel the slightest bit funny about using to bolster an argument against Bakken drilling?

The very next page of the presentation in the linked PDF talks about the strong positive economics of these wells. Each well with 540,000 barrels expected to be produced, making an expected profit of $20 million. (Not to mention all the other salaries, taxes, and fees the revenue from these wells generate.)

33
posted on 02/15/2013 11:46:55 AM PST
by Triple
(Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)

Since you plucked that chart out of a presentation that is very positive about Bakken drilling, dont you feel the slightest bit funny about using to bolster an argument against Bakken drilling?

I think that adds to the dependability of the chart. I am not arguing against Bakken, Eagle Ford, Permian Basin, Utica, etc in any way. I think the production is going to continue to grow, jobs are going to grow, imports are going to shrink, energy independence is going to grow.

What I do argue against, is a dramatic and lasting price drop because this technology. The Supply/Demand curves are real and if we see a significant, lasting price drop, the drilling will drop and following that, the productions will start to drop. Just like Natural Gas in the country.

The very next page of the presentation in the linked PDF talks about the strong positive economics of these wells.

Did you see any basis of that economics using a falling price? Those number are based on current pricing.

I agree that these wells will not dramatically drop the price of oil/gas. I think they will stabilize the price.

The benefit to the US economy will be dramatic, and positive.

I also think that the “green” energy approaches are dead in the water, due to this relatively low-priced domestic source of energy.

Green energy cannot compete at these prices.

The socialists are upset their pet (crony) projects in their central planning economy are failing. (Their solution is to heavily tax oil based energy and give tax credits to “green” projects. It still won’t work, because of the relatively low-cost of Bakken and other tight formation oil and gas.)

35
posted on 02/15/2013 12:10:18 PM PST
by Triple
(Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)

I agree that these wells will not dramatically drop the price of oil/gas. I think they will stabilize the price.

We agree

The benefit to the US economy will be dramatic, and positive.

We agree

I also think that the green energy approaches are dead in the water, due to this relatively low-priced domestic source of energy.

We don't agree. While I think money from the Tax Payers is wasted on the initiative with next to nothing to show for it, I don't believe the liberals have given up. Nor do I believe sufficient number of people going to the ballots place that as a priority.

Green energy cannot compete at these prices.

Not compete fairly, but the subsidies haven't ended.

The socialists are upset their pet (crony) projects in their central planning economy are failing.

I agree, but I have not seen the conservative take over the legislature and executive branches of government lately. In some areas, but not enough and not at the Federal Level.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.